Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

blog you*3
February 14, 2001 9:21 AM   Subscribe

blog you*3 egos on display. could the flames be rising? the guys at the "blog you" site get reviewed.
posted by riley370 (33 comments total)

 
Go right to the reviews:

at Davezilla
at ViewFromTheHeart

It's losers.org for the blog set, minus the constant negativity (though it comes close). I wouldn't take it too seriously.
posted by hijinx at 9:36 AM on February 14, 2001


I went to BYBYBY expecting really bad things, but I actually thought they were pretty fair-minded. I didn't agree with everything they said, of course, but I didn't think they were being deliberately cruel.
posted by rodii at 9:43 AM on February 14, 2001


What I don't understand is why read some nobodys review of a blog instead of just looking at the blog itself?

Also, I found the list of unclickable blogs on the left of the index page a maddening experience.

When I haven't finished my first cup of coffee in the morning, everything must be clickable. Clickable, I say!

posted by schlomo at 9:53 AM on February 14, 2001


>What I don't understand is why read some nobodys review of a blog instead of just looking at the blog itself?

Aren't we all nobodys here? I found BYBYBY very ho-hum, but no better or worse then a lot of the other blogs out there. If that's how those two want to spend their time and energy, so be it. I give it six months.

posted by Calebos at 11:17 AM on February 14, 2001


I just finished lunch and I *still* need those links to be clickable.
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:24 AM on February 14, 2001


They've done some tremendously curious to the body text, also. Without looking at the actual source, it looks like they've turned it all into a link and changed the hand cursor to the I-Beam cursor.

That's just weird. It's icky and weird and unnatural and all-around wrong. Ick.

Of course, combined with the unclickable links, I think it's actually just an error somewhere, but it's an icky and weird and unnatural error nonetheless. :-)
posted by cCranium at 11:36 AM on February 14, 2001


Is it just me, or is there something warped about a site based on rating blogs? It puts me in mind of the people who slap together sites containing the lyrics to all the albums they own. It keeps them from killing people and breeding, so I guess it's a world service of some kind. But "Amanda's Blog" would have been an ego tombstone with or without the wit and wisdom of these guys, just as The Association wasn't counting on Den to immortalize "Cherish" in his very special way.

The internet is suffocating in online librarians; sometimes it feels like half of the web is content (worthy or otherwise), and the other half folks who point to it so they can feel contributive.

Whoops. That includes us... But we're different!!
posted by Perigee at 11:40 AM on February 14, 2001


Is it just me, or is there something warped about a site based on rating blogs? It puts me in mind of the people who slap together sites containing the lyrics to all the albums they own. It keeps them from killing people and breeding, so I guess it's a world service of some kind. But "Amanda's Blog" would have been an ego tombstone with or without the wit and wisdom of these guys, just as The Association wasn't counting on Den to immortalize "Cherish" in his very special way.

The internet is suffocating in online librarians; sometimes it feels like half of the web is content (worthy or otherwise), and the other half folks who point to it so they can feel contributive.

Whoops. That includes us... But we're different!!
posted by Perigee at 11:40 AM on February 14, 2001


Jeezus kripes, that page dang near gave me an epileptic seizure!
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:54 PM on February 14, 2001


The whole exercise just seems overblown to me. Half these blogs won't be around in six months anyway.

A numeric review of specific elements -- design, usability, content, personality -- would be OK, as would a sentence or two review. But a whole paragraph? By TWO people? Uh, okay. It's your time.
posted by dhartung at 2:17 PM on February 14, 2001


what we really need are short, nasty, and brutish weblog reviews. just kidding.
posted by s10pen at 2:28 PM on February 14, 2001


Hijinx is right. Do not take too seriously. They're just having a little good, clean fun. Here's part of Tom's review of his own site, which he gave a Kiefer:

"The entries are an extensive eyesore and fall somewhere between volumes and encyclopedias of information no one could possibly want to read. The blog itself reads badly, and if I can suggest something to the author, it would be to seriously consider a job as a blind person, then he wouldn't be inflicting his writing on the rest of us cursed enough to have to SEE what he's written."
posted by dack at 2:45 PM on February 14, 2001


If people think the critical review of blogs is so bad, then do they pay attention to Ebert when it's time to review movies?
posted by rlef98 at 3:04 PM on February 14, 2001


Not that I have any great love of da fatboy on the aisle, rlef, but theoretically a trip to the flicks will run you upwards of $30.00 or more if you have a healthy social life: I suppose some folks feel a need to get some reassurance before shelling out about a quarter a minute in the dark.

On the other hand, the time it takes for me to figure out that 'Big Garbano's Micro Rant' is tripe for myself is minimal, and the cost so small it verges on incalculable.

~Shrug~ God bless 'em, if they want to. Heck, I 'color' black and white pics I find on the net with Photoshop when I get bored. But it's a little presumptuous to think that there's any inherent merit in either task.
posted by Perigee at 3:23 PM on February 14, 2001


We're being watched here folks. :-)

Actually, one of the proprietors of said site e-mailled me regarding my ickiness comment, and had me describe in detail what was happening. That's the sign of someone who's interested in his site, so props to him (I forget his name. I'm bad like that) for improving things.
posted by cCranium at 6:00 AM on February 15, 2001


Maybe the next new wave is blogs that rate blogs. We can wait for the blog that rates blogs that rates blogs.

I do think it is fitting that nobodys review nobodys since somebody that isn't nobody woudn't review a nobody unless they were bored.
posted by john at 1:19 PM on February 15, 2001


metalogs = cheap hits from self obsessed webloggers = their raison d'ĂȘtre = duh!
posted by Mr. skullhead at 7:19 PM on February 15, 2001


I swear I already said this, but if there is a blog that rates blogs that rates blogs, I hope the blog that blogs blogs that blog blogs blogs it.

Say it with me. . .

"Blog"

"B l o g"


posted by rodii at 8:15 PM on February 15, 2001


We're way ahead of you.

Wherever bloggers blog the blog ratings of blogs rating blogs, we'll be there.


posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 8:57 PM on February 15, 2001


No you're not.

You're just blogging the blog-raters, not the blog-rater-blog raters. When you can truthfully call yourself a blog-rater-blog rater-blog blogger, then you can blo--er, talk.
posted by rodii at 9:30 PM on February 15, 2001


The blog rater raters hadn't blogged yet, and the first blog to blog the blog rater raters was the blog rater blog itself. Which I blogged. I did rate this thread, which blogs the blog rater raters as well as the blog raters themselves, and includes lots of intra-blog discussion about the blogs, their raters, the blog rater raters, and thanks to you the blog rater blog rater rater bloggers - so I'd self-rate my blog-rater blogger blogism pretty highly.


posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 10:58 PM on February 15, 2001


I feel dizzy.
posted by cCranium at 7:44 AM on February 16, 2001


Predictable answer. I give it a Kiefer and a two Peter DeLuises.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 1:21 PM on February 16, 2001


hrm. fair rating for a predictible, cliched response. Possibly slightly on the generous side. 2 Donalds and a Neale
posted by cCranium at 1:46 PM on February 16, 2001


Blogwin's Law: "As a Metafilter discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Neale approaches one."
posted by rodii at 4:39 PM on February 16, 2001


Joe, I've often wondered: how much blog would a blog blog blog if a blog blog could blog blog?
posted by rodii at 4:52 PM on February 16, 2001


A duck.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 7:23 PM on February 16, 2001


Why a duck? (sorry, Chico)
posted by rodii at 8:23 AM on February 17, 2001


Aiee! My Blog got a two rating, which I really think I deserve a three ;) I mean, they're so rushed that they immediately thought my blog was about a popular british music band, when I just use Yardsale for my handle online...
posted by Yardsale at 8:44 AM on March 20, 2001


I'll see your duck and raise you a chicken, you pokerfaced bastards!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:19 AM on November 27, 2001


Man! What the hell are you doing in here, Stavros?
posted by Kafkaesque at 6:24 PM on January 3, 2002


Stavros, Kafkaesque...I don't want to have to tell you two again, stop jumping on the bed and get to sleep! Don't make me come in there.
posted by rodii at 9:48 PM on January 10, 2002


Just five more minutes dad?!
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:06 PM on January 30, 2002


« Older how to buy the new republican party...  |  Kansas Evolves... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments